Hacker News Reader

Comment by taeric | Hacker News Reader

I want you to read that a bit more slowly. And then explain to me how this isn't a paraphrase of "I don't believe in science and studying things."

It would help if you ack that the article encourages helmets. They are not trying to say to not wear them. They are arguing that the practicalities of how "mandates" work out cause more issues than they solve.

I, for one, fully accept that "more studies" would be good. I also always wear a helmet. I don't think either of those are good rebuttals. And any blanket statement of "I don't care what evidence there is," is almost certainly the wrong foot to be on.

View on HN

People are surprisingly bad about reading words and instead reading something entirely different.

It's clear from even the short HN title that we're talking about making helmets mandatory by law, not whether you should wear them.

> And then explain to me how this isn't a paraphrase of "I don't believe in science and studying things."

I think a more accurate description would be "I don't waste my time with bad science and sealioning" (of which I accuse the article, not you).

Take the "dropped precipitously" link from the article. Does it link to an article about the before-and-after effects of the helmet mandates in Sydney in Melbourne? No. Does it talk about a drop in bicycle usage, irrespective of any relation to the mandates? Also no. It's an uninstrumented observational article about the lack of adoption (specifically) of bike share programs in several Australian cities, with no meaningful analysis of policy-based or temporal factors (outside of the changing coverage areas of the bikeshare companies). That study has zero relation to the claim for which the posted article cites it. Trying to pass it off as if it does is entirely in bad faith.

Articles like the one linked in the OP are a dime a dozen, and disregarding them based on simple heuristics is a good use of everyone's time. If one has a bold scientific claim to make, they should either present the data alongside the article in which they make the statement, or accompany it with a peer-reviewed article that does.

I am sympathetic to the concern here. But you would do a much better task by attacking the stats, not by blanket dismissal of the ideas.

Following a few links from the main article easily gets to https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2017/09/01/missing-the-fores..., which has https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/13/wapo-is-wrong-head-in..., and ultimately points to there being something with just getting more folks on bikes. Especially for short trips that are likely the norm for bike share systems.

There is some intuitive sense to this. Is why short bus rides don't require seatbelts. (Though, I confess I can't remember the rules for cross state busses. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0318.htm has some info on school busses, but I'm not entirely clear that is applicable here. Except in as much as it is clear that comparing helmet laws to seatbelt ones is... dubious.)

Again, if you have legit complaints, make them. If you feel safer wearing safety gear at a personal level, you are correct. If you think that safety gear at a society level is a no brainer, I challenge you on that assertion.

I don't believe I ever dismissed the idea. I dismiss the bad-faith article about the idea.

Fair. I mostly read the dismissal as only based on the headline, which I feel is still unfair. But, I can take responsibility on that uncharitable read. Apologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com